Pages

Friday, August 31, 2012

Here's something Romney should say. Conceivably, as his support from the conservative base now seems fairly secure, he will say something like this. (I'm not counting on it but there's a chance.)

"I said recently that 'President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.' Some people seem to think I was making a statement about climate change. In fact, I was making a statement about President Obama and the utter disconnect between his rhetoric and his results. I have said in the past that 'I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that.' I still believe that. I have said 'It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.' I still believe that. I mentioned in my acceptance speech that renewables are part of the solution to our energy problem, and so is natural gas, which has helped lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. As we've seen in the Obama years, no nation with massive debt and sky-high unemployment is going to be an environmental leader. The first step is to end this awful economic malaise, which will enable us to afford a cleaner environment too."

While I watched Clint Eastwood's convention speech or skit or whatever you'd call it, I was thinking "This is terrible." But I was also smiling and certainly paying close attention, which is more than I can say for most convention speeches, including Marco Rubio's immediately afterward. So, in retrospect, I take seriously the possibility that maybe it was effective after all, as suggested by Jesse Walker among others. I also think that insofar as the political fact checkers are now discussing whether and by what measure the unemployed three and a half years into the Obama administration number 23 million or some other high figure, then that alone makes Clint's unusual presentation a winner for Romney.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

I haven't had a chance to weigh in on the GOP convention, but that Condoleezza Rice speech was the most impressive thing I've seen in the proceedings so far. I'm not convinced (any longer) that being pro-choice would prevent her from being the Republican nominee in whichever year there's an opening. Nor that the party is going to take some Ron Paulian foreign policy turn that rules that out. And the topics were easily wide-ranging enough to put away any notion she's only about foreign policy. The only thing missing was an "I carried a 357 Magnum" line, which the next speech took care of anyway.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

I recently read my review copy of The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free Markets since the Depression, by Angus Burgin. Very interesting, as I expected it to be, though I had expected the story to carry through more to the present. Instead, it's basically an overview of the careers of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, with much focus on their work organizing the Mont Pelerin Society.

But it does have current-day relevance, and here's an example that has a bit of irony. One theme is how Hayek was less of a free-market purist than he came to be perceived to be, and one reason for that was the way The Road to Serfdom
was condensed for Reader's Digest by the magazine's ideologically conservative editors, while Hayek was not in the country. Burgin:

In their reworking of The Road to Serfdom Hayek's style was simplified and dramatized, his observations were reordered and reconnected, and new sentences were written to impart an appearance of seamlessness to disconnected snippets. As a result, many of Hayek's qualifications were lost. As one critic observed, the text itself had become an enactment of readers' tendencies to take sentences out of context to support their own point of view. Hayek told his audiences that the Digest's editor had performed a difficult task remarkably well, but he also warned that its "faulty editing" posed a "particular danger." He was acutely aware that only a slim proportion of the readers of The Road to Serfdom experienced the book through his own prose. No author can control readers' interpretations of his or her published texts, but Hayek had lost control of the words themselves.

Me: Well, these things happen. But the funny thing is that they can keep happening decades later. Here's Glenn Reynolds today pointing readers to the Reader's Digest condensation, after Richard Epstein has done the same.

Noah Kristula-Green has his valedictory post up at David Frum's Daily Beast blog, which Noah is leaving as managing editor in order to become a power broker at the Winston Group. Noah's done an excellent job at the Beast and previously at FrumForum, and his five points are a good summation of what the overall project has been about. (I wish Noah were not right, in point #3, about it being a pipe dream to place hopes in something like Americans Elect, but the results there speak for themselves.)

I think the overall outlook, let's call it center-right, presented in the past and present Frum blogs has considerable potential to influence things over time. There is such political and ideological flux in this country these days that some decent ideas just might have a big impact, even (or especially) when few are expecting it.

Some time ago, at David Frum’s blog, I criticized Chris
Mooney’s The Republican Brain
for (in my view) overstating its case that
science is revealing a broad tendency among conservatives to deny or distort
facts. Let me say now that Mooney’s book is a model of fair-mindedness compared
to Science Left Behind.

Berezow and Campbell open by setting up their target: "progressives." They quickly unleash a bombardment of stereotypes:

Whoare the people
we’re calling progressives? Generally, they’re the kind of people who think that
overpriced granola from Whole Foods is healthier and tastier. They’re the
people who buy “Terra Pass” bumper stickers to offset their cars’ carbon
emissions. And they’re the sort of people whose beliefs allow them to feel
morally superior to everybody else who disagrees—even if scientists are among
those doing the disagreeing.

The authors distinguish between “progressives” and
“liberals” on the grounds that the former evince a social authoritarianism not
shared by the latter. I find this rather notional, given the virtual
interchangeability with which the terms are widely used. Supposedly, though,
whereas liberals favor economic interventionism but “value social liberty,”
progressives

seek dominion over issues such as the environment, food
production, and education. They endorse bans on plastic grocery bags,
McDonald’s Happy Meal toys, and home schooling. They hold opinions that are not
based on physical reality about how energy and development should work. And,
most significant, they claim that all of their beliefs are based on
science—even when they aren’t.

So it seems that progressives are antithetical to science as
a matter of definition. Oddly, this comes just a few pages after the authors
assure us that “the purpose of this book is not to demonize all progressives.
We just want to demonize the loony ones.” And: “Though some progressives are
pro-science, many within their ranks are not.”

Then there’s a look back to what progressive once meant, but
the authors are no better on their history. Consider this:

For a time, progressivism made for good politics. [Theodore]
Roosevelt was joined under the banner of “progressives” by Democrats including
Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryant [sic]. All of these men aimed to
mobilize rationalism and science to promote “progress,” just as their
philosophy’s name suggested.

Bryan is better described as a populist than a progressive,
and the notion that he “aimed to mobilize rationalism and science” would’ve
been news to H.L. Mencken during the Scopes Monkey Trial.

This just scratches the surface of what’s wrong with this
book. The authors present various examples of leftists being out of
step with science. Some of these are issues that cut across ideological
boundaries (anti-vaccine hysteria, for instance). Some are issues where the
left-wing anti-science types have had little success in getting the policies
they want or even getting support from Democratic politicians (genetically
modified foods). Some are just marginal and obscure issues to begin with (the
use of compostable utensils in the Capitol Hill cafeteria).

Berezow and Campbell are right that there are anti-science
attitudes on the left. They are wrong to see these as of similar current significance to anti-science
views on the right. They fail to show
any issue that is a progressive counterpart to the conservative stance of
recent years on climate change—that is to say, an important issue where one side, including its elite, is not only grossly out of step with the scientific
community but has succeeded in getting its anti-science views reflected in
public policy.

After filling the book with tendentious and trivial point-scoring, the authors
close with a chapter on the science-related issues that "really matter." This is
filled with banality such as “it is imperative that Americans have a serious
debate about the country’s future in space.” Thanks for the tip.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

In the Sept. issue of Research magazine, I offer whoever wins the presidential election some advice on what to do next: take "A Bold New Direction," by focusing on radical tax reform.

Opening:

On Jan. 21, 2013, either a re-elected President Barack Obama or a
newly elected President Mitt Romney will be celebrating his
Inauguration. In either case, as the champagne corks pop, this much is
certain: He’ll have plenty of problems.

The economy, of course, will be troubled. Even if there are signs of
an upturn in early 2013—and there may well not be—this will be occurring
against a backdrop of longstanding poor growth and high unemployment.
Much improvement will be needed over recent baselines to create a
widespread sense of recovery, let alone prosperity.

I go on to advise scrapping the income tax and payroll tax in favor of an X tax and carbon tax (call it the X+C plan). Whole thing here.

Niall Ferguson In Newsweek: "Obama's Gotta Go." This article is very strong when it comes to the mediocrity (at best) of Obama's record. It gets weaker when it starts celebrating the alternative, and with the claim that "Ryan psychs Obama out." (I remember the same exact claim re Palin four years ago; even if true, it wasn't a particularly consequential effect.) But since so much of the election is now about Ryan, Ryan, Ryan (or today, worse about somebody named Akin about whom I hope to never hear again), it's valuable to have some attention paid to just what the incumbent has done and not done.

UPDATE: Ferguson's piece gets some pushback here. And Ferguson has more here.

Here's some conservative discontent with Paul Ryan, on the grounds that he's a "corporatist" who favored TARP. To me, that has a similar effect to many conservative arguments we were hearing (especially pre-Ryan) against Romney: i.e., liking the candidate that much more after reading it.

For a lot of questions, there's someone out there who knows the answer. When a hinge on my Ikea desk broke, because a certain youngster had placed his elbows too heavily on it, it could have been difficult or impossible to find a replacement; I didn't even know the name of the desk type (Alve). But a little searching and I got what seems to be a correct recommendation for replacement hinges. Pre-Internet, things would not have proceeded so smoothly.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Here's a good reason to vote for Joseph Kyrillos, the GOP candidate for Senate in New Jersey:

Many Republicans voice support for simplifying the tax code while
lowering rates, but Kyrillos went further and has refused to sign the
pledge from Americans for Tax Reform to oppose anything that increases
the net tax burden on individuals or corporations. Most Republicans in
Congress, and the party's entire New Jersey delegation, have signed that
pledge.

"There's a big difference between increasing revenue by raising taxes
and increasing revenue from lowering taxes while closing
special-interest loopholes," Kyrillos said in a news release. "A
simpler, more efficient tax code will reward hard work, boost job
creation and raise revenue by growing the economy."

His campaign would not comment beyond the statement, which
also criticized Menendez for supporting higher tax rates. But one
anti-tax activist said he appeared to be engaging in damage control.

"If revenues are up, it doesn't matter what you call it,
it's a tax increase," said Steve Lonegan, state director of the
conservative Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which has funded buses
to bring demonstrators to Tea Party rallies in Washington.

"If revenues are up, it doesn't matter what you call it,
it's a tax increase." That desire for lower revenues qua lower revenues is at the heart of Tea Party ideology today. It's not only appallingly fiscally irresponsible; it also departs from the history of Republican conservatism. Recall that supply-siders used to emphasize that lower rates could mean higher revenues (and drew the Laffer Curve on napkins to make the point). That optimism was often misguided but at least it reflected a recognition that lower revenues are not a desirable thing in themselves, and certainly not the answer to a fiscal crisis.

As for me (Ken Silber), I have my own Fareed Zakaria story. Sometime over a decade ago, maybe it was in the late 90s, I interviewed with him for an editorial position at Foreign Affairs. Unfortunately, in the couple days before the interview, I developed some problem with my ears -- an infection or waxy buildup or something -- such that I could barely hear. Instead of seeking to postpone the interview, as I should have done, I showed up, acknowledging the problem and plowing ahead into a conversation that went largely like this:

Fareed Zakaria: Hmmdm mvmvm gvmgm mvmvmvm vmvmvm vmv?

Me: Excuse me?

I didn't get that job, somehow, but I do appreciate that Zakaria was diplomatic in not pointing out how I was wasting his time. I hope his generally laudable career recovers quickly from his recent lapse.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

If I were a political operative strategizing for a national campaign, I'd be very interested in this:

· A majority of all registered voters (55%) say they will consider
candidates’ views on global warming when deciding how to vote.
· Among these climate change issue voters, large majorities believe
global warming is happening and support action by the U.S. to reduce
global warming, even if it has economic costs.
· Independents lean toward “climate action” and look more like Democrats than Republicans on the issue.
· A pro-climate action position wins votes among Democrats and
Independents, and has little negative impact with Republican voters.
· Policies to reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels and
promote renewable energy are favored by a majority of registered voters
across party lines.

David Stockman makes some good points, along with some not so good ones, in this op-ed: "Paul Ryan's Fairy-Tale Budget Plan." Not so good: comparing today's defense budget with that of the 1950s 1961 by adjusting for inflation without noting that defense was a much higher percentage of federal spending and GDP back then And whatever case might be made for cutting the Pentagon budget, citing Calvin Coolidge as a defense and foreign policy exemplar is ridiculous.

Stockman is right, though, in noting what political courage does not consist of: further cuts in the top income tax rate; unspecified eliminations of deductions; and no discussion of alternatives to our current tax system.

UPDATE: Another interesting piece, "Why Demogoguing Paul Ryan is Bad for Democrats," by William Galston. (Answer: because it crushes Democrats' ability to then reform entitlements.) I would've spelled it "demagoguing," by the way.

My friend and fellow conservative deviationist D.R. Tucker has made up his mind: "It's going to be something of a weird experience, but for the first time in my life, I'll be voting Democratic in this fall's presidential election." See his post "Breaking Away." Excerpt:

I'm still not exactly a fan of President Obama. If Jon Huntsman had secured the GOP nomination, I would have voted for Huntsman over Obama without a second thought -- because Huntsman seemed to have the backbone necessary to stand up to the John Birch Society wing of the GOP.Romney and Ryan don't have that backbone. So this November, I'll set my differences with Obama aside in the name of saying no to a ticket that stands for nothing.

I sympathize. I'm not where D.R. is, but I can see his position from a not-too-distant vantage point. I too would be voting with some enthusiasm for a Huntsman ticket (Huntsman-Daniels?). I don't really agree that the problem with Romney-Ryan is that they "stand for nothing" -- actually it's more a combination of expediency and (worse) wrongheaded convictions (e.g. that we need more tax cuts) that's the problem. I note that D.R. doesn't have anything particularly positive to say about Obama--and what is the positive case for Obama? In any case, this is a moment of enthusiasm on the right--and it's never been more clear that I'm not on what's now the right.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

There are many factors to consider as to how Ryan on the ticket changes the political calculus. One is the October debates.

My idea that the presidential debates will be crucial and will push polls in Romney's direction (and enable him to win the election) carries less weight now than previously, I think. The Ryan pick ensures heightened attention to the Oct. 11 VP debate, and Ryan enthusiasts are touting how he'll wipe the floor with Joe Biden. I'm not so sure. The event might highlight Ryan's lack of foreign policy experience. But in any case, I don't see how the Ryan pick enhances Romney's prospects in the debates. If Romney shows up offering Ryan's fiscal ideas, he looks weak and derivative. If he doesn't, he wastes the supposed advantage in "ideas" that the Ryan pick gave him. The upside is slim, it seems to me.

As for Obama, his debate strategy now becomes talking about Ryan's plans more than about other attack points such as Bain--but certainly not about his own plans and record in any case.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Those of us who are Republicans and who also believe that climate change presents serious risks that need to be addressed--see my posts here, here, here and here--have had little cause for enthusiasm about the Republican Party on this issue in recent years. Romney, among the primary candidates, was the second-least-bad (Huntsman, also less than perfect, was the least bad). With the selection of Paul Ryan, Romney has added to the ticket someone whose climate record is worse than his own.

Against this, it is important to remember the fecklessness of the Obama administration on climate change. Failing to pass a cap-and-trade bill, and then mentioning the subject as little as possible, is not a good record either. Yes, the Democrats at least don't declare global warming a hoax and prattle on about "Climategate." But when you get to the question of how much carbon emissions would actually be different depending on who wins the election, there's no clear answer, as far as I can see.

Maybe a Romney administration would follow the advice of longtime Romney advisor Greg Mankiw and impose a carbon tax. Or maybe the Obama administration would get some carbon trading set up that replicates the flaws already evident in carbon trading overseas. Results are what matter.

Furthermore, in weighing the respective merits (or lack thereof) of the candidates, I give some weight to the spectrum of opinion among their supporters. On the Republican side, that includes every shade of denialism and evasion. On the Democratic side, there are those who think the answer is, say, a worldwide "war footing,"with a command economy deliberately set up to depress living standards. The policy emphasis I would want to see--a carbon tax coupled with broader tax reform; and a federal focus on relevant R&D spending rather than Solyndra-like attempts to subsidize corporate operations--is not
on either side's policy agenda currently.

So, bottom line, if I were voting on the basis of climate policy alone, I'd vote for the Democrats. But that's not the case. On the other hand, although I've said I'll vote for Romney, I've also said it's possible I'll change my mind. Watching what the candidates say on climate will be a factor on that score.

Well, that's not the choice I would've made. In fact, as I wrote earlier, the Ryan boomlet seemed like a gift Romney could enjoy precisely by rejecting it. But no. So now where are we? Ryan has a reputation as a serious policy wonk--but he puts out tax projections based on unspecified eliminations of deductions. He voted for TARP (a point in his favor, to my mind) and then spent subsequent years building a reputation as a Randian scourge of Big Government and entitlement spending. Steep cuts in Medicare--beginning years from now--combined with endless tax cuts is not the solution I'd present to America (in fact I will be presenting an article with my own solution a few weeks hence). Of course, there's also the question of what power the V.P. will have anyway.

Will Ryan help Romney win? I tend to think not--in other words, that the increase in conservative enthusiasm will be outpaced by the increase in independents not voting Republican this year. It will be perceived--rightly, I think--as a sign of Romney's weakness and fear of the conservative base. I could be wrong. We'll see.

UPDATE: David Frum has a good post on what's right and what's deeply wrong in the Ryan plan (on the spending side; leaving aside the lack of specificity about taxes). ThinkProgress points out how this GOP ticket just became much less attractive to people who don't think global warming is a hoax. On a brighter note, I doubt many people will vote against Romney-Ryan out of fear they're aligned with "militant atheism."

Friday, August 10, 2012

The truth is that, if elected, Romney is extremely unlikely to sign the Ryan budget, or to completely repeal Obamacare, or to act in accordance with his tough rhetoric on immigration, or to significantly reduce the deficit. Conservatives have persuaded themselves out of desperation that a man they know to be unreliable won't have any choice but to advance their agenda in the White House, which makes about as much sense as assuming that a Ryan vice-presidency would influence Romney in a conservative direction rather than co-opting Ryan.

Me: And that's good! While Friedersdorf (being someone with his own set of disagreements with prevailing opinion in conservatism) doesn't make a clear value judgement in his post, I will. A great attraction of a Romney presidency is precisely that he isn't expected to kill the Energy Dept., restore the gold standard or generally strive for a 19th century vision of political economy. If those were his objectives, he would not have won the Republican nomination, let alone have a good chance (as I think he does) of winning the presidency.

As for all the conservative grumbling, I think Friedersdorf has it right: "Partisans, especially of the professional variety, are nevertheless incapable of acknowledging when they're screwed."

It will be very interesting to see how all this pans out after the election. Either Romney wins, and there is much maneuvering to push his administration in a rightward direction; or Romney loses, and there is much complaint that the GOP should've nominated a "real conservative" (as if Michelle Bachmann would've won). Either way, the trouble for ideological movement conservatives is that they're too strong to recognize the need for compromise--and too weak to get the electoral and governing results they want.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

In order to get elected, and also to govern effectively if he is elected, Romney has to show that he is his own man--that he won't work under the direction of the Republican congressional caucus, the Wall Street Journal editorial page or anyone else. From that standpoint, the conservative boomlet for Romney to pick Paul Ryan as his VP choice is a gift to him. Simply by rejecting such advice, Romney gains some credibility as a candidate and prospective president. Of course, if he actually chooses Ryan, the gift is wasted.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

The controversy over Obama's "You didn't build that" statement has gone on longer than the Romney campaign could have hoped. Whatever the president exactly meant -- whether it was "You didn't build your business alone" or "You didn't build the infrastructure supporting your business" -- it is clear enough that his point was to limit the credit an entrepreneur can rightly claim. After all, business owners are not responsible for the business conditions that enabled them to thrive, right?

So, by the same token, does it make sense to be blaming Mitt Romney for a cancer death that occurred after someone lost health insurance after a plant was closed down--which happened after Romney was at Bain, which he headed when the initial investment in the plant was made? It seems a stretch in any case, but even more so since "You didn't build that" logically also means "You didn't dismantle that."

Sunday, August 5, 2012

I've just written an article sketching out what the presidential election's winner should do about tax policy, which involves some very fundamental reforms. I'll be blogging about that article when it's available in late August, but for now suffice it to say the approach is one that differs greatly from what either candidate is currently proposing, and yet has aspects that would appeal to both sides of the political aisle. More to come on that.

I am not a political monomaniac (or at least I think I am not). Among the many other topics that have caught my interest lately (besides the Olympics, which I'm pleased to have some time to watch):

-- "Decoding the Science of Sleep." Particularly interesting to learn people routinely used to divide the night into two segments, first sleep and second sleep, doing a few post-midnight activities in between.